City of Port Hueneme reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2026-02-23 and was reported on 2026-05-14. 3 Indiana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 3
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window May 14, 2026 → May 15, 2026. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_8defd718bd1b4c88 · merge_method deterministic · confidence 100%
Discovered → first regulatory filing
Time between earliest and latest filing
Not recorded for this incident
Discovery variance · Leak precedence · Materiality delta · SEC filing delay — no leak-site claim in this cluster; no SEC 8-K in this cluster; needs two dated filings.
Identity (basic) · Government ID
CA IN
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Feb 23, 2026
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Mar 3, 2026
Reported by CALIFORNIA AG filing
City of Port Hueneme reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2026-02-23 and was reported on 2026-05-14. 3 Indiana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 3
The City of Port Hueneme notified residents of a data security incident where an unknown actor accessed City files on or about February 23, 2026. The City learned of the incident on March 3, 2026, when the actor contacted employees. Personal information, including names and potentially other data elements, was acquired without authorization. The City engaged cybersecurity experts, notified law enforcement, and is offering credit monitoring services.
About this clustering
DisclosureLens links filings into incidents through layered matchers: deterministic rules (same source document, multistate filings of one breach, tight-window same-victim pairs), a weighted-similarity scorer for cross-source candidates, and an operator review queue for everything uncertain. Each link records its own method and confidence — shown per filing in the timeline below. The system defaults to NOT merging when uncertain, because a false merge (collapsing two unrelated breaches) is more harmful than a false split (showing related filings separately); uncertain pairs route to human review instead of auto-merging. Filing summaries shown in the timeline are AI-generated extracts — verify each against its linked source.